I'm not quite clear what the problems are that people see with incorporating
a historical element into CHAT. I see it as far less problematic than
macro-meso-micro (on that, I'll get round to some comments on your 'Adding
more' mail soon, I hope, Mike). A historical element is necessarily present
in human goals, mediational means and broader forms of consciousness. I
always thought that this recognition was one of CHAT's strong points.
Is the problem having a method for picking apart the different layers of
historical elements or an overall framework that incorporates a historical
element? Or just the absence of CHAT studies in which the historical
dimension is explicit?
Bruce
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tina Sharpe" <tinasharpe@ozemail.com.au>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: 22 October 2001 01:48
Subject: Re: aT and history
> Thank you mike,
> i have read about this. is there anyone else working in this area?
> Tina
>
> Mike Cole wrote:
>
> > Marianne Hedegaard has written on an AT curriclum unit on evolution,
which may
> > be helpful in dealing with historical issues, Tina.
> > mikec
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 01 2001 - 01:01:59 PST